[NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines

[Dr. Tatiana Tropina]

Hi Rafik,

Friday looks like a good solution - will go through the comment tonight.
Thank you.

Farz and I are working on the jurisdiction and ombudsman reports
comments, so a note to all to stay tuned - we will share them this week
probably.

Cheers,

Tanya


On 10/12/17 10:00, Rafik Dammak wrote:
> Hi Ayden,
>
> Thanks for the question, it seems that when it comes to a matter
> related to technical aspects (they are using IETF terminology), "must"
> is often used while "encourage" (6 occurrences )is more for
> informational matter and urging registries to cooperate for example. 
> knowing how much IDNs are facing as problems to be implemented and not
> necessarily seen as a good business opportunity for many registrars
> except for some non-latin scripts, I would think the guidelines should
> be implementable and less onerous in order to provide registrants more
> choice.
> we can put a note anyway saying that we think that we prefer the term
> "shall" or "should" at least which is probably stronger "encourage".
> btw the staff is keen to give us an extension and asking when we can
> submit. I would suggest to them that we can submit by this Friday.
>
> Best,
>
> Rafik
>
> 2017-12-10 6:40 GMT+09:00 Ayden Férdeline <icann at ferdeline.com
> <mailto:icann at ferdeline.com>>:
>
>     I don't have a strong opinion on this issue or on our comment,
>     however, in the source document
>     <https://www.icann.org/en/system/files/files/draft-idn-guidelines-03mar17-en.pdf>,
>     the word "encourage" is used frequently. i.e. "Encourage
>     registrars to notify registrants of non-conforming registered
>     domain names".
>
>     Do we think this terminology is appropriate? I prefer words like
>     "must" - they give registrants more clarity over what they can
>     expect from registrars - but I could be persuaded otherwise.
>
>     — Ayden
>
>
>>     -------- Original Message --------
>>     Subject: [NCSG-PC] Fwd: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on
>>     IDN Guidelines
>>     Local Time: 9 December 2017 5:37 AM
>>     UTC Time: 9 December 2017 05:37
>>     From: rafik.dammak at gmail.com <mailto:rafik.dammak at gmail.com>
>>     To: ncsg-pc <ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is <mailto:ncsg-pc at lists.ncsg.is>>
>>
>>     hi all,
>>
>>     the deadline for submission is 10th December, I will try to ask
>>     for few days extension. I would like to ask you review the draft
>>     for endorsement or not.
>>     after that, we can focus on several public comments which
>>     deadline is around 5th January.
>>
>>     Best,
>>
>>     Rafik
>>     ---------- Forwarded message ----------
>>     From: *Farell Folly* <farellfolly at gmail.com
>>     <mailto:farellfolly at gmail.com>>
>>     Date: 2017-12-05 0:38 GMT+09:00
>>     Subject: [NCSG-Discuss] Second Public Comment on IDN Guidelines
>>     To: NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
>>     <mailto:NCSG-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu>
>>
>>
>>     Dear All,
>>
>>     In October 2017, ICANN called for a second public comment on the
>>     version 4.0 of IDN Guidelines. Actually, following the first
>>     round of comments most of the concerns addressed by the community
>>     were taken into account. Nevertheless, two questions remain open
>>     and some people here may think it is useful to discuss them.
>>     Please check what we drafted
>>     <https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L6Fj41rkku6g44FkDbvmUc12MAxv99szaRz8OSmnSbE/edit#>
>>     so far and make your suggestions, if any. Otherwise, we won't
>>     have a significant comment on this report and just endorse it.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>     -- 
>>     Regards
>>     @__f_f__
>>     https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf
>>     <https://www.linkedin.com/in/farellf>  
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> NCSG-PC mailing list
> NCSG-PC at lists.ncsg.is
> https://lists.ncsg.is/mailman/listinfo/ncsg-pc

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.ncsg.is/pipermail/ncsg-pc/attachments/20171211/2622ac25/attachment.htm>